Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SATHYAPRABHA, KUNNUPURATHU VEEDU versus ASOKAN, S.S.NIVAS, ELIYAM VILAKOM

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SATHYAPRABHA, KUNNUPURATHU VEEDU v. ASOKAN, S.S.NIVAS, ELIYAM VILAKOM - WP(C) No. 37173 of 2004(A) [2007] RD-KL 11923 (3 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 37173 of 2004(A)

1. SATHYAPRABHA, KUNNUPURATHU VEEDU,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. ASOKAN, S.S.NIVAS, ELIYAM VILAKOM,
... Respondent

2. SOBHA, S.S.NIVAS, ELIYAM VILAKOM,

For Petitioner :SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA)

For Respondent :SRI.SIBY MATHEW

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

Dated :03/07/2007

O R D E R

M.N.KRISHNAN, J.

WP(C)No. 37173 OF 2004 A

Dated this the 3rd July, 2007.



JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed to issue a writ of certiorari against Ext.P12 order. The challenge is against the order in I.A.806/03 in O.S.292/00. It was an application filed by the plaintiff to set aside the commissioner's plan and report prepared with the assistance of a retired taluk surveyor as per the directions of the court. A perusal of the order of the learned Munsiff would reveal that when the commissioner went to inspect the property with the said surveyor the plaintiff gave a representation that the property need not be measured. Then at the request of the defendant the property was measured and a report has been submitted. It is against that report and plan the present petition is filed to set aside the same. A perusal of the order of the court below would show that it was DEALT with the propriety of the plaintiff rather than to apply its mind regarding the correctness of the plan. There was an adamant attitude of the plaintiff to have the plan prepared only with the assistance of a village officer and not a retired surveyor. That has created all the problems and the present plan and report is prepared by the commissioner with the assistance WPC 37173/04 2 of a retired surveyor as per the directions of the court. If the plaintiff is able to establish before the court that the present plan and report submitted are not in accordance with the documents, it is a matter that has to be considered by the court. Similarly resisting the application, defendants are also at liberty to adduce and state that it is strictly in conformity with the documents and surveyor's plan. Therefore the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial court with a direction to the court to consider this application on merits after allowing both parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions. The court shall consider whether there is anything material which has to be corrected or remitted or has to be set aside. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 3.8.2007. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN Judge jj


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.